Complaints Against CL&P Rise, Complaints Against UI Fall

According to the Consumer Scorecard released today by the Department of Public Utility Control (Department), the Department’s Consumer Services Unit (CSU) received fewer consumer complaints per 100,000 customers during calendar year 2010 from customers of: Thames Valley Communications, United Illuminating, Connecticut Natural Gas, Cox Connecticut Telecommunications, Aquarion Water Company of Connecticut and Viridian Energy than it did for their industry peers in Connecticut.

For the fifth consecutive year, CSU received the fewest complaints per 100,000 customers from customers of the Aquarion Water Company when taking into account all utility sectors in Connecticut.

CSU received more consumer complaints per 100,000 customers in calendar year 2010 from customers of: Comcast Middletown, Connecticut Light and Power Company, Southern Connecticut Gas, One Communications, United Water Systems and NextEra Energy Services than it did for their industry peers in Connecticut.

The Consumer Scorecard compares the number of complaints regarding billing, deposits, general complaints, meters, installations, outages, payment arrangements, quality of service, slamming and terminations. Customer inquiries related to requests for general information, utility rates and tariffs, telephone numbers or calls involving general questions from consumers are not included in the Consumer Scorecard figures.

During CY 2010, the number of consumer telephone calls to the Department’s CSU totaled about 45,000. In about 3,917 cases, staff of the CSU conducted a formal investigation of the customer complaint, a decrease of 6% from the 4,168 formal investigations conducted by CSU in CY 2009. This decrease in complaints occurred mostly in the areas of: billing, installations, metering, payment arrangements and terminations.

For calendar year 2010, overall complaints involving all electric companies were essentially unchanged from the previous year; complaints regarding all natural gas companies decreased by 15% compared to the previous year, and cable company complaints decreased by 22% compared to the previous year. Complaints involving all telecommunications companies decreased overall by 5% compared to the previous year, while all regulated water company complaints were virtually unchanged from the previous year.

Complaints involving electric suppliers and aggregators rose from 90 in CY 2009 to 222 in CY 2010, while the number of customers who switched to an electric supplier grew from 280,000 in December 2009 to 630,000 in December 2010.

The overall complaint figures for each industry received during calendar year 2010 fluctuated from those received in prior calendar years as follows:

Industry

CY 2010

CY 2009

CY 2008

CY 2007

All

3917

4168

3857

3469

Cable

845

1080

874

796

Electric

1760

1773

1418

1544

Gas

553

654

798

549

Telecommunications

446

470

609

505

Water

46

47

48

60

Video Service Provider

42

57

50

13

Electric Suppliers

222

90

70

4

The Consumer Scorecard is based on an index number that shows the number of complaints per 100,000 customers, which enables comparison of large and small companies alike. For very small companies, even a minor change in the number of complaints could dramatically change a company’s score from one year to the next. To calculate the scorecard, the DPUC uses only those contacts classified as jurisdictional complaints; that is, calls, letters or e-mails from customers who first contacted the utility company about their complaint but remained dissatisfied even after speaking to the utility company. The information in the Consumer Scorecard does not reflect the validity of the complaint, just that the customer was not satisfied with the company’s service, response or proposed resolution to his or her complaint.

Some fluctuation for any one company can be expected from a scorecard rating in one year to the next. This can be based upon special or seasonal circumstances such as weather-related issues, rate case proceedings, company changes to its customer service practices and procedures, rising energy prices, an increase in customers, changes in the economy, quality of service, the financial and economic demographics of a company’s service territory, the availability of energy assistance funds, termination activity, uncollectible levels and the like.

The DPUC’s Vice Chairman, John W. Betkoski III (lead Commissioner for water issues), praised Aquarion “for achieving this record for the last five years”. The DPUC’s Chairman, Kevin M. DelGobbo, commenting on the Consumer Scorecard stated, “The Consumer Scorecard is one tool to measure a utility company’s customer satisfaction but it is not the definitive instrument to evaluate the level of service that a utility company provides to its customers or how those customers rate the company’s customer service. In this time of extraordinary economic challenges, the Department strongly believes that each utility company must have as its first priority to provide high quality customer service as well as creating an environment in which its customers believe that they are getting the customer service they are paying for and that they are in fact the company’s number one priority.”
Attached for your convenience is a copy of the CY 2010 Consumer Scorecard. The CY 2010 Consumer Scorecard and Press Release are also posted on the Department’s web page (www.state.ct.us/dpuc/).

State of ConnecticutDepartment of Public Utility ControlConsumer Services Unit (CSU)Calendar Year 2010 Scorecard

Total

Utility Name

Score

Customers

complaints

CATV

1760 (1)

Cablevision of Connecticut

44.60

125,565

56

Cablevision of Litchfield, Inc.

43.28

27,725

12

Cablevision of Southern Connecticut

47.17

97,512

46

Charter Comm/Northeast

92.86

30,153

28

Charter Comm/Western

54.00

62,960

34

Comcast/Branford

88.56

56,461

50

Comcast/Clinton

76.79

23,440

18

Comcast/Danbury

115.58

33,743

39

Comcast/Groton

100.48

19,905

20

Comcast/Hartford

151.74

84,355

128

Comcast/Lakeville

161.92

4,323

7

Comcast/Lyme

110.57

8,140

9

Comcast/Middletown

195.84

23,489

46

Comcast/New Haven

132.73

62,533

83

Comcast/Norwich

123.09

17,060

21

Comcast/Plainville

127.71

67,338

86

Comcast/Seymour

92.03

31,510

29

Comcast/Vernon

81.65

25,718

21

Comcast/Waterbury

113.06

37,150

42

Cox Comm./Enfield

42.34

35,429

15

Cox Comm./Manchester

33.86

59,075

20

Cox Comm./Meriden

42.62

35,193

15

MetroCast Cablevision

57.92

32,803

19

Thames Valley Communication

11.39

8,777

1

Total

Utility Name

Score

Customers

complaints

ELECTRIC

1760 (1)

CL&P

116.14

1,203,735

1398

UI

104.47

325,466

340

GAS

553 (1)

Connecticut Natural Gas

57.03

171,845

98

Southern Connecticut Gas Company

140.31

189,586

266

Yankee Gas Services Company

88.02

214,727

189

SUPPLIERS/AGGREGATORS

222 (1)

Better Cost

1 (3)

Choice Energy

53.68

1,863

1

Clearview Electric

65.77

12,164

8

Con Edison Solutions

16.18

18,546

3

Constellation New Energy Inc.

22.75

13,188

3

Direct Energy Services

25.78

65,932

17

Discount Power

37.73

23,854

9

Dominion Retail

21.19

28,319

6

Energy Plus

17.74

39,451

7

Freedom Choice Energy

13 (3)

Liberty Power Holdings

150.83

1,326

2

MXenergy

47.60

54,617

26

NextEra Energy Services (f/k/a Gexa Energy)

206.61

968

2

North America Power & Gas

22.10

40,726

9

Patriot Energy

2 (3)

Positive Energy

21 (3)

Public Power & Utility

43.28

62,390

27

ResCom Energy

25.68

58,411

15

Starion Energy

30.80

29,217

9

Verde Energy

108.98

33,952

37

Viridian Energy

12.34

8,107

1

TELEPHONE

446 (1)

SNET d/b/a AT&T CT

24.95

1,286,551

321

Verizon

109.18

24,729

27

AT&T

39.47

35,468

14

Comcast Digital Phone

33 (2)

38 (2)

Cox Connecticut Telcom L.L.C

10.01

79,909

8

MCI

23.51

8,507

2

One Communications

120.31

10,805

13

Total

Utility Name

Score

Customers

complaints

VIDEO SERVICE PROVIDER

42 (1)

AT&T U-Verse

42 (2)

57 (2)

WATER

46 (1)

Aquarion Water Company of CT

2.75

181,829

5

Connecticut Water Company

13.55

88,534

12

Hazardville

13.72

7,286

1

Torrington Water Company

10.41

9,607

1

United Water Company

84.13

7,132

6

Valley Water Systems, Inc.

29.74

6,725

2

(1) This figure represents the total complaints for the industry in CY 2010.
(2) Because of the proprietary nature of this company’s customer count information, only the complaint figures for CY 2009 and CY 2010 have been provided.
(3) The customer counts for these aggregators are included in the customer count figures provided
by the associated suppliers